The overlooked relationship between IR and Area Studies
Hurrell’s (2020) article highlights the often-overlooked links between IR and Area Studies. He argues that a sensitivity to area-specific realities is crucial for IR to fulfill its disciplinary mission, emphasizing the need for these two to support each other. While IR, with its core goal to “understand the international system as a whole” (p. 191), traditionally focuses on major power relations and values theory building from a Euro-centric perspective, Area Studies concentrates on empirically analyzing non-Western, marginalized regions. As criticism towards IR’s Eurocentrism grows, there has been a trend of seeking non-Western, regionally or culturally specific perspectives grounded in Area Studies on the global order. However, this approach risks promoting “cultural and regional inwardness” if it excessively focuses on region-specific characters without critical reflection, potentially reproducing the ethnocentric biases that are critiqued in Eurocentric IR approaches (p. 193). Additionally, Hurrell calls for considering the complexity and interdependence of global systems. Understanding them through any single cultural or regional lens is inadequate; all theories, whether Western or not, require critical evaluation. Furthermore, Hurrel argues that, while comparative research is important, there is also value in analyzing the overall picture. He highlights that Area Studies is not defined by “the exotic”; rather, the “nearly the same” is much more important than “the radically different” in global IR (p. 194). Several members of the reading group echoed this view yet pondering how to strike the balance between specificity and universality.
Hurrell’s concise piece offers many intriguing ideas about the interplay between IR and Area Studies, though it would benefit from more detailed supportive arguments. Moreover, while the article effectively discusses why IR needs Area Studies and the benefits it can gain, it largely overlooks how Area Studies can benefit from IR. This oversight is notable, especially since the core claim of the article is to address why IR and Area Studies need each other. On the one hand, this omission leaves room for further exploration and a more balanced discussion. On the other hand, it may reflect the disciplinary politics between IR and Area Studies: IR’s theoretical contributions are deemed more valuable in academia than the empirical knowledge produced by Area Studies. This is supported by Aris’s 2021 research on citation practices, which reveals that “IR cites AS less than vice versa” (p. 473).
Like Hurrell (2020), Aris (2021) notes the understudied relationship between IR and Area Studies, but he particularly focuses on placing this relationship within the broader context of IR’s relationships with other social science disciplines. This approach facilitates an insightful comparison within disciplinary politics. It is commonly argued that IR is subordinate to the ‘master’ social sciences, yet it assumes a dominant role in its relationship with Area Studies. Aris systematically examines the knowledge exchange between IR and Area Studies by analyzing citation practices at the journal level. The analysis is structured across three tiers: discipline-to-discipline, journal-to-discipline, and journal-to-journal. The reading group appreciated the rigorous method employed to substantiate the following key observations and arguments.
As indicated by the disciplinary hierarchy, the citation practices are asymmetrical, with the lower-status Area Studies more frequently citing the higher-status IR disciplines. Specifically, Area Studies journals predominantly cite high-ranked US-based IR journals, such as World Politics and International Organization, reflecting the internal hierarchy within the discipline. Regarding area scholarship cited by IR journals, regions such as Africa and China are significantly more represented, correlating with their geopolitical relevance to the Western political elite and media narratives (p. 476). This flow of knowledge from Area Studies to IR primarily aids in solving empirical issues through comparative case analysis and policy analysis rather than advancing perceived high-value theoretical development.
One reading group member pointed out that Area Studies tends to be more politically driven than academically oriented, focusing on specific regions and countries to serve foreign policy. This perspective was supported by several other members. One participant cited a recent example where, while IR remains a secondary discipline within Political Science, Area Studies was elevated to a primary discipline in China to enhance policy research and advisory efforts, ultimately supporting the state’s foreign policy objectives. This shift indicates that the relationship between IR and Area Studies is dynamic and likely more prone to change in authoritarian regimes to align with governmental strategies. Additionally, Aris suggests that prestigious IR journals are often cited symbolically as a nod to the broader IR discipline. However, to fully grasp this argument, some group members expressed a desire for more detailed information on the quality and context of the analyzed citations.
In addition, one member raised concerns about the use of potent and potentially emotionally charged terms in the paper by Aris, such as ‘healthy discipline’ and ‘intellectual autism’ (p. 454). These terms, particularly ‘intellectual autism,’ carry ableist connotations that influence the reader’s perception of the arguments presented. Consequently, we agreed that more neutral terminology should be employed to ensure that the discourse remains focused on the scholarly merits of the arguments.
Global IR as a means to integrate IR and Area Studies?
Western and non-Western researchers and institutions have increasingly interacted in the realms of IR teaching and research. Despite this, the disciplinary agenda remains dominated by the Western IR academic community. In response, Acharya (2014) proposes ‘Global IR’ as a means to transform IR into a “truly inclusive discipline” (p. 647). He defines Global IR through six main dimensions: commitment to pluralistic universalism; grounding in world history, not just Western history; subsuming existing IR theories and methods; integrating regional and area studies at the core of IR; avoiding ethnocentrism and exceptionalism; and recognizing multiple forms of agency (pp. 647–651). Global IR places regions at the center stage, synthesizing disciplinary IR focusing on theoretical interests and area studies emphasizing fieldwork approaches and empirical analysis. Similar to Hurrell, Acharya highlights the importance of studying how regions relate to each other and shape global order, beyond their distinctive features. Furthermore, Acharya presents a corresponding Global IR research agenda to address these six core concerns.
The reading group acknowledged that the article is well-structured and contains many ideas, agreeing that IR as a discipline requires greater inclusiveness and diversity. Meanwhile, one member cautioned that this call should not inadvertently promote nationalism as a counter to Western IR and science. Although Acharya recognizes that constraints, such as limited resources and restricted freedom of expression, hinder Global IR’s development, his primary aim is to raise awareness and prompt action within the IR community. However, these practical factors may have a greater impact than anticipated. Reflections from some group members in their respective research fields indicate that non-Western regions are underrepresented, with funding mechanisms playing a significant role. In low- and middle-income countries, the allocation of scarce research resources often prioritizes sectors deemed essential for national development, such as natural resources and technology, over disciplines like IR. Furthermore, while several members appreciated the article’s presentation, others criticized its writing style, feeling that the author is mostly ‘marketing’ Global IR and renames existing problems without offering practical solutions. One participant found the writing style understandable, noting that the article was adapted from the author’s Presidential Address at the 2014 ISA Annual Convention, likely aimed at inspiring action.
Additionally, many reading group members were puzzled by the undefined nature of ‘area’ in Area Studies, a confusion not exclusive to this article but common across all three articles we discussed. Whether intentionally or not, it appears that these authors from Western universities tend to limit ‘areas’ to non-Western, marginalized regions. However, this approach is problematic. From one perspective, the definition of an ‘area’ often depends on who is studying it. For example, in non-Western countries and institutions, the EU and the US are frequently considered core areas within their Area Studies programs. In these three readings, understanding ‘areas’ as predominantly non-Western sharply contrasts with their criticism of Eurocentrism in the IR discipline. This indicates that Western biases might be unconsciously embedded in IR researchers through their training, underscoring the need for more critical reflection on one’s positionality. While maintaining the concept’s openness and inclusiveness is beneficial, a clearer definition would enable more effective discussion.
While it remains unlikely that our reading group members will resolve questions about our academic identities or future career paths as IR or Area Studies scholars after reviewing these three articles, we have gained a more systematic understanding of the often-overlooked relationship between these two disciplines. It is apparent that Area Studies frequently holds a perceived lower disciplinary status. Global IR offers a promising approach to elevate Area Studies within the broader framework of disciplinary IR, although specific strategies to achieve this integration remain undefined. This raises critical questions: Is Global IR the sole method to enhance the status of Area Studies? Must we limit ourselves to, or align exclusively with, one disciplinary club or another? These issues warrant deeper investigation and broader engagement from across the academic communities.
References
Aris, S. (2021). International vs. Area? The Disciplinary-politics of Knowledge-exchange between IR and Area Studies. International Theory, 13(3), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000184
Hurrell, A. (2020). Why International Relations and Area Studies Need Each Other. St. Antony’s International Review, 16(1), 191–196.
Acharya, A. (2014). Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171
